Summary of Issue: Definition Of Common-Law Partner

Decision 76512 Full Text of Decision 76512

The claimant was denied benefits as he voluntarily left his employment without just cause within the meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Act. He stated that he left his employment to accompany his partner to Kamloops. It is noted they had not lived together; they had been in a relationship for just over seven months. The law is clear, notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which the claimant alluded, in order to establish a common law relationship, one must fall within the parameters of the section of the Act which defines “common law partner”: "common-law partner", in relation to an individual, means a person who is cohabiting with the individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. The claimant's appeal is dismissed by the Umpire.

Decision A0026.06 Full Text of Decision A0026.06

The claimant left her employment to follow her common-law partner of some 10-11 months. Such reason is a just cause listed in subparagraph 29(c)(ii) of the Act. The issue is whether the claimant had established the existence of a common-law relationship prior to leaving. The Board and the Umpire did not consider the definition of "common-law partner" introduced to the EI Act in year 2000: "in relation to a claimant, means a person who is cohabiting with the claimant in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year". A relationship of 10-11 months does not allow for a finding that the relationship had a duration of "at least one year".